A financier holding allegedly stolen pledged property may be ordered to produce it for seizure without prior hearing.

The charge sheet alleged that the accused stole gold and silver jewellery from the complainant’s home and pledged some of it with Muthoot Finance Limited’s Bannur branch

Muthoot Finance had earlier obtained an order in a writ petition requiring it to retain the jewellery, produce it for investigation, and produce it before the jurisdictional court when directed

The Sessions Court subsequently directed Muthoot Finance to produce the jewellery and pledge documents before the Investigating Officer, who was to seize the jewellery and produce it before the court

Muthoot Finance challenged that order, arguing that it had not been heard and that the procedure under Section 107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) had not been followed

1. Whether the Sessions Court’s direction to produce the pledged jewellery, followed by its seizure by the Investigating Officer, required Muthoot Finance to be heard beforehand

2. Whether the procedure under Section 107 BNSS applied to the production and seizure of the jewellery

3. Whether the Sessions Court’s order otherwise warranted interference in revision

Section 97 BNSS permits a Magistrate, on the prescribed grounds, to issue a warrant authorising a police officer to take possession of property reasonably suspected to be stolen and found at a place used for the deposit or sale of stolen property

Section 107 BNSS concerns attachment, forfeiture and restoration of property, rather than the production and seizure of property involved in a criminal case

The Court stated that seizure and production of case property enable the court to exercise jurisdiction over its custody under Sections 497 and 503 BNSS; a person asserting an independent right may apply for interim or final custody under those provisions

The Court also relied on the earlier writ order requiring Muthoot Finance to retain and produce the jewellery as directed

The Court treated the impugned direction as a step to secure and produce property allegedly connected with the charged offences, not as a final determination of ownership or custody.

The direction was consistent with the earlier writ order and with the production and seizure process described by the Court under Section 97 BNSS

Section 107 was inapplicable because the order did not concern attachment, forfeiture or restoration

The Court also held that Muthoot Finance’s asserted right to be heard did not prevent the production and seizure of the alleged case property; any independent claim to the jewellery could be pursued before the trial court under Sections 497 or 503 BNSS after seizure

The revision petition was dismissed